Is it really fair if people can't agree on how it works? Seems to go against the GNOME principle of simplicity by adding more choices to fix some of the issues of voting. I'm all for making things more fair but I'm not sure the complexity actually fixes things or hides the issues under a layer of complexity. In any case the final decision should be well documented on how it was reached. If at all possible, done by hand showing the work at each step.
On Wed, Jun 24, 2009 at 12:29 PM, Michael Meeks <[email protected]>wrote: > > On Wed, 2009-06-24 at 10:11 +0200, Dave Neary wrote: > > You just announced the results based on first-past-the-post, when the > > elections were to be run using preferential voting, with single > > transferable vote and fractional surplus transfer. > > Ah ! the famous 'Meek' method (no relation); can be rather a rabbit > Warren of complexity this thing - though it's clearly a fairer way of > doing things: as I recall the Open-Solaris board specified this form of > STV in it's bylaws which seemed sensible. > > Fun, > > Michael. > > -- > [email protected] <><, Pseudo Engineer, itinerant idiot > > > _______________________________________________ > foundation-list mailing list > [email protected] > http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list >
_______________________________________________ foundation-list mailing list [email protected] http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
